SSSCA Editorials

idiotnot writes: "This editorial from the New York Times, by Jonathan L. Zittrain, a professor at Harvard Law School, urges legislators to exercise caution in regulating the PC. Eisner, et. al. want to limit the PC's capability, which will limit what PC users are allowed to do. See this earlier story about Eisner's testimony to Congress. '[W]e should beware the haste with which some would sacrifice flexibility for control.'" Other readers submitted a story in Hardware Central and an AP article. Seems like the ruckus over the SSSCA is finally reaching the mainstream press.

Comments

So that's what he meant

[Henry V .009]

Absolutely. In January Bill Gates sent a memo to all Microsoft employees declaring a new, overarching, even revolutionary mandate: Software must be reliable and "trustworthy." This new focus is both welcome and worrisome, because the very steps needed to secure our computers and networks can be the steps that will deaden them to continued innovation and creative uses -- while opening them to more intrusive monitoring by mainstream technology manufacturers and content providers.

Mr. Gates and the co-captains of his industry are producing blueprints for so-called "trusted" PC's. They will employ digital gatekeepers that act like the bouncers outside a nightclub, ensuring that only software that looks or behaves a certain way is allowed in. The result will be more reliable computing -- and more control over the machine by the manufacturer or operating system maker, which essentially gives the bouncer her guest list.

Oh God. Gates was serious after all.

Re:So that's what he meant

[Melantha_Bacchae]

An AC wrote:

> Umm I hate to tell you this, Microsoft actually is against this as a law.
> Maybe you should read the press releases more.

Maybe you should read up on Microsoft's patents more. Here's one that might interest you: Patent # 6,330,670; "Digital rights management operating system"; dated December 11, 2001. You can read all the gory details at:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1= PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='6,330,670'.WKU.&OS=PN/6,330,670& RS=PN/6,330,670

Really, Microsoft would have to come out publicly opposing SSSCA. The first time round (last fall), they didn't have the above patent. This second time round, they have the patent, but Enron happened. Microsoft has paid out two to three times the campaign contributions as Enron, and probably can't afford to be caught paying for and then embracing and extending SSSCA into its total and eternal dominion of the operating system market for all devices.

So Microsoft quietly grumbles and complains, all the while letting the MPAA and RIAA do its dirty work. When SSSCA passes, Microsoft brings out its DRMOS patent, and forces its competitors (Linux, OS X, etc.) to license it (and embrace IE, .Net, their Media Player, etc.) or break either patent law or the SSSCA. If anyone tries to charge them with buying the law, Microsoft can just pull out a pile of press releases and say they are just obeying a law they protested against. Welcome to the Microsoft Millenium, now mandated by law!

We've got 12 to 18 months to stop SSSCA. That's how long Senator Hollings is giving the industry to comply voluntarily (as if an already wounded industry should further cripple itself to serve the fat sharks of Hollywood!). Fight it! Writing your congress critters is good. Telling all your friends and family, writing letters and press releases to your local papers, writing articles for news sites, etc. is better. Get the word out to ordinary folks in a way they can understand. That way, both you and all of them can write their congress critters. With enough public outcry, this nightmare of a law might be stopped for good!

Come on, Tok Wira, these sharks have got to pay!
New Kirk calling Mothra, "We need you today!"

I've written my representatives

[nigelthellama]

Have you? It takes just a couple of minutes, and might mean a lot. This law scares the bejesus out of me, and I hope it does the same to you. Let your Senators and Representatives know.

Re:I've written my representatives

[regen]

As someone who lives in Washington D.C. and has numerous friends who work as Congressional aids and in the administration, I can tell you that writting is not the most effective method, although it is better than nothing.

The best method is to try and arrange a face to face meeting with your Rep. Calling on the phone, come next, followed by writting and lastly e-mail. Basically, the more effort it is the more effective it is. If you are willing to travel to washington or arrange a meeting with your Rep. when they are at home, they will realize that what ever issue you want to discuss is very important to you.

Re:I've written my representatives

[Speare]

My open letter to my representatives goes into quite a few separate objections to the SSSCA (and why the DMCA was broken). It's eight paper pages long, going into extra details and speaking plainly since it's also intended for a wider audience. It covers scope, civil, business, technical and motive objections to such legislation.

If you're writing to your representatives, you may want to read my letter for additional arguments on the topic. A couple of the court case mentions are slightly out of date now, as it was originally written last October.

It is posted online at http://www.halley.cc/ed/politics/2001-10-22.conten t.control.html. Comments always appreciated.

joe sixpack

[Alien54]

The average joe will hopefully wake up before he figurtes out that the things he wants are now illegal.

unfortunately, the tactic used in the poast has been to ust gradually reduce the feature set of the products gradually so that he never notices.

hopefully the best hope on this is the quandary seen in companies like sony. Sony music, I believe, grosses 4 billion dollars a year, while Sony Electronics, makers of mp3 players, etc grosses 40 billion dollars. In this case, I wonder which part of the company will win out, given the conflict of interest inside the company.

there are plenty such issues messing up the priorities.

Re:joe sixpack

[Rogerborg]

• Sony music, I believe, grosses 4 billion dollars a year, while Sony Electronics, makers of mp3 players, etc grosses 40 billion dollars. In this case, I wonder which part of the company will win out

Senator Kickback: So, what can you guys offer me?

Recoring Exec:A roofied teenage pop starlet, a sack full of crack, and a job in marketing for your idiot waster nephew.

Electronics Exec: Uh, I dunno, how about a really neat watch that turns into a robot dinosaur?

Consider that internally these departments are knifing each other with merry abandon. Want to bet they can't lobby separately? Then it comes down to who's the more corrupt and ruthless. I know who my money's on.

Before you flame

[jsse]

While most of you think it is ridiculous, and I'm sure you've thousands reasons explaining why it doesn't work; stay calm, and think about it. As you can see a lot of people doesn't even have a slight clue of it, we really need to voice out.

Even a professor at Harvard Law School would say something like that! Those guys are supposed to reach a certain degree of clue level. I always think they must be smarter than us in all aspect. Now you can see how serious the matter is - we are surround by professional Cluelessnesses!!

To add insult to injury, they want to redefine the reality to suit their clue level. The worse is that the reality would be changed so that sane people are considered insane and vice versa. It just happens.

Don't just sit there! Write to your senators to voice out your opinions!(write with plain letter, of course)

Mainstream Press Coverage

[CFN]

I'm very glad to see all the mainstream press that this proposed legislation is getting.

Hopefully, as more and more editorials criticize this law, the general public will begin to see what is at stake and demand that Congress abandon this Disney law.

It is not the role of the government to protect the revenue streams of industry; but somewhere and somehow this has become their sole occupation. In a democratic free-market, the government should ensure fairness (I'm not a libertarian, I have no belief in an entierly market-based system) - unfortunatly in our system the government seems only concerned with appeasing the largest corporations, with no regard for the people they are presumed to serve.

If we all stand up, and let our politicians know that "enough is enough" hopefully they will change their ways. And it seems like more and more "everyday" people are beginning to make their voice heard (witness protests in Seattle, etc.), but the corporate media does its very best to quiet this dissent.

Unfortunatly the American idea of freedom has been transformed, and what remains is solely a concern with the freedom to make money.

Re:Mainstream Press Coverage

[mpe]

Hopefully, as more and more editorials criticize this law, the general public will begin to see what is at stake and demand that Congress abandon this Disney law.

Simply getting this law abandoned would simply be "winning the battle", in order to "win the war". You'd need a fundermental change in attitude of the US government. But a change which does not require too much loss of face in admitting that all which has been done to aid corporates was wrong (even "Unamerican".)

Unfortunatly the American idea of freedom has been transformed, and what remains is solely a concern with the freedom to make money.

Thing is that this didn't happen "overnight". Things have been going wrong since the nineteenth century. It's also more "freedom for (especially large) corporate entities to make money" than a plain and simple "freedome to make money".
Whilst it dosn't actually say it anywhere this "Digital Rights Management" is clearly not intended for the "little guy" to use to bypass or even directly oppose the existing publishing industry...

I thought the article missed the point.

[SomeoneYouDontKnow]

I thought the article missed the point. Many people are going to come away from reading it thinking, "I don't want one of these crippled computers, so I won't buy one, no matter how much I see ads for them." They aren't going to appreciate the fact that the media companies don't want this to be a choice we have--they want to ram these things down our throats. They know damn well that, given the choice, no one will want them, so they want to pass a law like the SSSCA to force the issue. That is what people need to understand.

But this article is a great opportunity for anyone interested to write a letter to the editor of the Times. Getting published won't be easy, but it's possible, now more so than ever, since the paper has given this issue publicity. So if you want to write, here's your chance. They have an e-mail address for submissions:

letters at nytimes dot com (munged to prevet spam)

I wasn't able to locate a postal address on the Web site for letters to the editor, but maybe someone else will have that available and post it here.

Re:I thought the article missed the point.

[budgenator]

I don't want one of these crippled computers, so I won't buy one, no matter how much I see ads for them."
The point is still missed; everybody is talking about computers, dvd player, mp3 players, video games ect. But when you actualy read the act it in only refers to digital interactive devices. Sorry guys but that also includes my wrist watch (it has a chip and two buttons) as well as my car, (a computer and many buttons).

Also the impression I get is that the act treats hardware/software combinations as a system; so they may be able to treat an upgrade/patch as a change requiring the whole system to be re-certified. This certification is going to be expensive Do we believe that Redhat is going to spend millions to get their latest/greatest version certified or that Microsoft will be able to?

Grandfatering will not help much either because sooner or later something is going to break, and the repair or patch will make it a new system and then it falls under the law.

Ad Absurdum and the SSSCA

[gnovos]

What I can't understand is why the writers of bills like the SSSCA can't just bite the bullet and take the bill to it's logical conclusion. It exists for one reason and one reason only, right? Money. No one has argued anything else. The almighty Right to Compensation. Why stop at simple DRM and hope it doesn't get cracked in the first 20 minutes? Why not just let all the music in the world go free and create a direct music/artist tax for everyone. Cut out the middle man and have the people pay directly into the bank accounts of the copyright holders.

Seriously! Wouldn't this be incredibly efficient? Isn't this the logical conclusion of laws that are designed to guarantee profits for a particular group?

Workable DRM?

[seaan]

As both a dedicated member of the EFF, and an applied crypto specialist, I've been wondering how and if a DRM/content-control system could be made "reasonable". I even worked on a proposal for the product that became DIVX in a past job. My problem with pretty much every commercial system I've seen so far boils down to the issue: I don't trust the people designing and administering the system.

For example, I have no conceptual problem with restricting some traditional fair-use rights when it comes to renting movies. I don't think a renter needs the ability to copy the movie for either time-shifting or back-up purposes. Congress started with that basic thought, and ended up with section K of the DMCA that required copy protection on all new VCR's (CopyGuard/MacroVision). The problem is that the movie industry promptly screwed the consumer!

* They put copy protection on all tapes (and DVDs), not just ones for rental.

* The copy protection removes fair-use (that I think) should still be available in a rental situation: such as "quoting" a section of a movie for review or analysis.

* The copy protection does not expire once the movie becomes public domain, an issue that will cause our future historians fits!

Most the DRM systems I've seen proposed eliminate most of the rights/benefits consumers (and society) normally have under traditional copyright law. If the DRM clauses were put into a "shrinkwrap" contract, they would be ruled unenforceable (for example the courts quashed the publishers attempt to enforce a "do not resell" notice in a book). A DRM system combined with the DMCA anti-circumvention measures puts the consumer at the mercy of the system designer. Your only option is to not buy it, which may mean going without since the publishers/recording-industry are going to be loathe to make any non-DRM content available.

Ignoring all the practical issues with the SSSCA for a moment (and there are a bunch!), the only way the bill should proceed is if it guarantees that no DRM will hamper or eliminate rights in the copyright balance. I'm not talking about Disney's definition of fair-use either (which as best I can tell, is something to the effect that Disney can use public-domain material, but does not have to release any of it's own work into the public domain). To take my rental example, the DRM would have to find some way to accommodate all three bullets (not an easy thing to do).

To be fair, another slant on this is the definition of new "relationships". We can now think of two normal methods of obtaining a movie for example: "purchase" and "rental". The DRM proponents are trying to make new workable models. The original idea behind DIVX went something like this: Electricity used to be charged based on capacity. Edison would count the number of lights in your house, and set the monthly charge based on the potential capacity of how much electricity you might use. Once they designed a power meter (a very tricky area, even now), they could dramatically lower the prices and only charge you for the electricity that you used. DIVX would allow a very low charge per use (planned to be lower than a traditional rental charge), instead of a one-size-fits-all purchase price.

The DIVX problems make a good illustration for almost all the DRM schemes I've seen. I never heard of DIVX being cracked. Secure client software backed up with a centrally managed server can make things pretty bullet proof (up to the point it converts to something outside of the DRM scheme). But security aside, DIVX had a whole host of problems, which frankly I don't know of a way to get past. Aside: I've considered job offers at today's DRM companies, but many of them are just too sleazy. The typical attitude is that public domain and fair-use is unimportant - the copyright holders content needs to be protected at all costs!

* The most obvious issue, is that once the central DIVX system died, all the media became useless. This is the single largest issue with DRM.

* The discs were too machine specific (they did have some theoretical "sharing pool" for people who had multiple DIVX players, which I'm not sure how well it worked). Even if you paid for a life-time access (see above), you could not play the disc on your neighbor's machine.

* There was a large potential for "marketing abuse", since they had to identify each item played on the machine (they would know who played what media, how many times, etc.). Your only protection was voluntary agreement that the data collected would not be misused.

* You are at the mercy of the DIVX operations staff. They could change the price or terms-of-use any time they wanted to.

As to the practicalities of the SSSCA, I think the closest analog the computer industry has experienced is export regulations. I [unfortunately] have lots of experience of just how bad that can be! I worked for a company that used encryption in virtually all of it's products. We once estimated that approximately 20% of the company's resources were used to deal-with, design, and follow export regulations. Of a hundred employees, "only" 3-4 actually dealt with the regulations daily, but virtually the entire design team had to take them into account. What should have been a single product would be split into multiple products to fit the ever changing interpretations of the regulations (resulting in a dramatic increase in development, testing, manufacturing, and marketing). Believe me, very few people in or out of the industry have any idea of how bad the SSSCA would clog our technology industry up!

Re:Workable DRM?

[KjetilK]

Hm, well, you know, the thing is that DRMs is used to enforce scarcity, and that's what I dislike about it.

I mean, we have a situation where it is possible to make copies, one as perfect as the first, no degradation of quality, for almost no cost at all.

How can this be negative? I mean, it should be the best thing since sliced bread! It is absolutely astonishing that technology has progressed this far, it was unthinkable just a few years ago.

This fact that there is no scarcity makes it possible to share everything at no cost. For the first time in history can we share everything we make with everyone.

Ok, so what's the problem? The problem is that people can't envision a viable business model in this kind of society. Especially not the suits. Without a business model, how do you make sure that the creative people can go on being creative?

Ok, so this is the problem. However, enforcing scarcity is just a Wrong Solution[tm]. It is means destroying the most fundamental technological advance that the world has seen in a very long time. You shouldn't do that.

RIP Linux - '1984' achieved through stealth

[heretic108]

This SSSCA is laying the infrastructure for mass control, not only of software, but also expression.

I can forsee that the SSSCA will be applied so that ISPs are forbidden from accepting connections from non-'trusted' client computers.
'Trusted' computers would contain hardware-based digital certificates, so it would be easy for the ISP to determine if an open-source computer is trying to connect.
That's Linux gone in one fell swoop.

Next, the SSSCA will wipe out all independent software developers - 'trusted' OSs simply won't run software that doesn't have a digital license.
Digital licenses will only be available to approved companies, after passing a thorough security examination, and paying a fortune.

On trusted computers, programming tools will only be available to security-certified corporations. Any software written will have to pass an expensive security audit at source-level before being granted a release certificate (which would allow it to run on other people's PCs).

Media creation tools, such as desktop publishers, audio/video editors etc will produce secure media files that will only be able to play on the computer on which they were created - or, for an extra license fee, up to 5 other designated computers. Licenses to create media for mass distribution will cost a mint, and require security clearance.

Websites are next. Web browsers will only be able to access certified websites. Webmaster security certification will cost a fortune.

Email too - email clients will vet outgoing email messages through an 'Intellectual Property Clearance Server', which will scan the message's text against a huge database of copyrighted texts. So if an email contains more than a few words that happen to appear in the IP database, it won't get sent. The 'IP Clearance Servers' will also scan for phrases which are too controversial.

This is WAR, folks!!!!!

The most significant event in US history since the Declaration of Independence and the Civil War.

Time for everyone to kick up the biggest fuss the country has ever seen.

Or else!

"He loved Big Brother"
-- last words of '1984' by George Orwell

All I want for Christmas...

[s390]

(besides my two front teeth) is... a hardware RAID5 SCSI board, some 10K rpm U-160 SCSI disks, and rather more really fast DDR RAM.

I won't ever buy any of that crippled crap they're thinking they'll push on the market. I'll use what works, and they'll have to pry my system from my cold, dead hands before I'll ever install any DRM hardware. Let 'em come and try to take it away! I'll shoot 'em coming in the door!

AOL-TW, Vivendi Universal, Bertelsmann, Disney/ABC, and all those MPAA and RIAA pimps and their whore lawyers can kiss my ass!

Re:All I want for Christmas...

[pmz]

One thing I just realized is that the SSSCA is raising way too many questions. Just look through all the recent Slashdot comments about it for proof. A piece of legislation that has such a high ratio of questions to answers is obviously not good.

The market is just not ready for SSSCA.

Dear Congressperson:

[kcbrown]

ASOIDHFH82379GH8IHJFOWEJ98FHG23G8
298UGH3892HOEWIGH98H2UIEWHG89HGEE
298UH3G92H392RSIDHGHU98UWHEFE9239
23HFUSHHFHOIWE90G9UGHUIHG98UFQOIE
UI2OHG290239URJJHSUIHGEUIHG90EUFH

----

Can't read the above? That's because your SSSCA-compliant computer refuses to decode my SSSCA-compliant message, because you haven't paid Microsoft $1,000,000 for the right to legally decode messages sent to you by your constituents. That you got the above at all was only because I paid Microsoft $10,000 for a license to send messages to Congress.

----

Of course, the above hasn't happened yet. But it will, if the SSSCA passes. Because the SSSCA will give COMPLETE and ABSOLUTE control over what you are allowed to do and not do to only those corporations that are given the privilege to write the operating system and other software for SSSCA-compliant computers.

Some in Congress might actually regard it as a good thing that constituents are no longer able to communicate with Congress, especially by computer. If you are one of those, then I will make it my mission in life to make sure that you never get elected to any public office ever again.

Thank you for your time.

The Government and the SSSCA

[NetSerf2000]

I'm one of those dumb aussie's everyone keeps talking about... born and brought up there.

In Australia, we have an old saying for a situation like this... Dont steal, the government hates the competition

By the looks of this bill, the music and movie industry in the states wants to apply our saying to their own means. It's a a pretty basic bill really... "we're right, you're wrong, give us all your money and we wont put you in jail for being a scum-sucking thief who wont give us money".

All I can really see is the computer industry going to hell and taking the rest of the world economy with it. If this law comes to pass, I will not want to buy something from the states because it's cheaper anymore, why should it... all of a sudden, I cant use my computer do make my own music CD's, I wont be able to back up my original software media. I wont even be able to back it up to the hard drive. Hell, the way I read this law, I wont even be able to backup my hard drive in case of a computer crash

Considering that there are a lot more people outside of the states who would have brought hardware from the states because it is dirt cheap than there is in the states. I really dont see the hardware manufacturers bending over to get shafted because of this law. Why make two identical products (one with the SSSCA crap in it) when you only have to make one and not sell it to the US.

I think that it will be cheaper for them to move offshore and stop dealing with the draconian laws of the USA than it will be for them to stay in the states and suddenly have to build a separate manufacturing line to build their products for internal US use. Why should they, they have already spent billions on the current crop of production plants that are working just fine.

How do you think that the defence department is going to react when they develop a custom, top secret, piece of software for their network and they have to submit it to the SSSCA inspectors just to make sure that it conforms to the standard...

I really dont think so...

So is the US government going to really welcome something like this that stops them from being able to innovate and develop their little programs. Ohh I forgot, they wrote the law... so I guess that means that their hardware will be exempt from the law. Ahhhh, it's good to be the king (to quote Mel Brookes, History of the World Part 1)

and now we are back to that old saying in Australia... Dont steal, The government doesnt like the competition (and neither does the MPAA and the RIAA)

This is my view of the SSSCA and it's effects on the rest of the world, it is meant to be a semi-humourous view and should be taken as such. Flame me if you want, but just consider the point of view from outside the cube. If you dont like the implied repercussions, write to your local representative and get them to check out anything that disturbs you.

Not bad for a lawyer

[dinotrac]

Hope my lawyering background doesn't bias me here, but I thought he did all right for a lawyer.

Too much time on the freedom vs. reliability thing.
Sure, making reliable machines means curtailing freedom, but not the freedoms he thinks. It means curtailing the freedom of developers to do bad things in the code they write, not curtailing their freedom to deliver capabilities to the consumer.

What he missed altogether was the potential for reduced reliability as the result of systems designed to keep you from doing things. As with all things done by mere humans, there will be bugs, there will be shortcuts, there will be...oh, you get the idea.

The end result will be things that don't work that would work in the absence of controls.

OTOH: He is bang-on about letting the market decide and bang-on about the ultimate loss of utility that comes with content providers' desire to clamp down on PCs.

simple copy protection:

[zdburke]

What i've never understood is, if the RIAA or MPAA folks don't want people to make copies of digital works, why do they keep releasing digital works? If there's no CD available, then i can't copy it.

Piracy is a social problem, not a technical one, yet the recording industry keeps insisting on technical solutions. They released products into the market place which people realised they could use in new and interesting ways which hadn't occurred to the industry folks. So now the RIAA is stomping around shouting, "Wait! Wait! That's not what I meant!" Well, that doesn't mean we need to legislate the rights of the consumer. It means the recording industry should be smarter next time.

You shouldn't get federal legal protection for making stupid business decisions, you should get the opportunity to learn from your mistakes. It seems like we're going about this whole problem bass-ackward.

It's also impossible

[A nonymous Coward]

This SSSCA is certainly legislatable, but hardly enforceable. Ya can't stop people from owning compilers. The US IT economy would stifle itself so fast that foreign heads would spin, no other country would enact similar legislation, and the US IT infrastructure would collapse. That's IFF they actually tried to enforce such legislation.

I do not fear this legislation. Part of me hopes the bozos actually pass it and enforce it, even though it would make me a criminal, just for the sheer fun of watching all the resultant confusion build up as various deadlines approach.

I gather one of the goals for terrorists from Timothy McVeigh to al Qaeda is to sow so much confusion that the target system gets more and more restrictive and finally collapses from within. Sort of like carrying any argument to the extreme just to show how ridiculous it is. This SSSCA is just the ticket to make a mockery of all intellectual property.